dthAfter the first day of watching the movie, I have already found a few connections between Uncle Vanya and the Cherry Orchard. One of the connections was that the upper class was portrayed as lazy in both plays. The one that really caught my attention, though, was the fact that the doctor owns an orchard that is known for miles around. This is much like Madame Ranevsky's Cherry Orchard in the play. I wonder what the significance of the orchards are in Chekhov's plays. Does anyone have any ideas regarding this matter, or did anyone find other connections?- NVa-c Mar 6, 2008
The doctor owning an orchard was one of the first things that connected this to the Cherry Orchard for me to. Another thing I noticed--less about the plot and more about style--was the lack of action in Uncle Vanya. All that happened in the movie was dialogue that refers to the action that previously happened--in the case of Uncle Vanya's and the Professor's pasts--or was happening simultaneously--the Doctor's arrival during the night, the Professor working. There was barely any action in the play, a characteristic that was also prominent in the Cherry Orchard, which again had all the dramatic moments of the story--namely, the auction--occur offstage and instead focused on the discussions and reactions to them. It is a different style of storytelling that Chekhov is trying, and although I'm not entirely sure whether I like it or not yet, I am interested to see how he continues to use it in Uncle Vanya. - dsU-c Mar 6, 2008
I noticed some smaller similarities between Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard. In the movie, there was man wandering around playing his guitar in the background. This may seem insignificant, but it was exactly how I pictured Ephikhodof in the play. I immediately made that connection during the movie. Also, the older woman ("Nanny" I believe), rambling and calling her chickens reminded me of the strange and unintentionally humorous things that Firs would say. Sonya reminded me of Barbara. She was left to do much of the work around the house and didn't have a spouse. She was frustrated by this. Although Chekhov uses different characters, he used similar roles in Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard. DSu, I also found the styles of the two plays to be very similar. The humor in both were also similar. The random, strange occurences were what made me laugh in both. - KGa-c Mar 7, 2008
I agree with KGa; a lot of the characters seemed to be portrayed in the same manner in Uncle Vanya and the Cherry Orchard. Also, neither of the plays seemed to have a plot in the usual sense, as we noticed in the Cherry Orchard. Usually a play will have a rising action, a climax, a conclusion--neither of the plays feature these actions. They both seem to be plays that just follow a group of upper-class people's lives (which are altogether uneventful). As Nick mentioned, the upper-class in both plays are portrayed as lazy, and this is explicitly pointed out in Uncle Vanya. Uncle Vanya is talking to Yelena and he starts talking about how there is something about her that brings out the laziness in everyone--everyone is under some spell of hers that makes them stop working and continually want to lounge and talk with her. They used to work, but they've completely stopped and it doesn't seem to change much of anything. In The Cherry Orchard, there was no mention of them ever working for their position, or working at all, but they have that same type of languid life that is seen in Uncle Vanya. - dru-c Mar 8, 2008
To add to what dru said about laziness, I noticed that the lazy people are the ones who come from a wealthy background. In the cherry orchard, there were several mentions of how people in the the aristocratic class like Mme Ranevsky are so accustomed to getting pampered that they not only don't do any of their own work, but they also don't even know how to. This is just like Yelena. In one scene, she and Sonya are talking, and Sonya tells her that she should go out and work. Yelena says that she would like to, but she doesn't know how to do any of the jobs that Sonya mentions. I think that Chekhov wove this theme into several of his plays because he thinks it's important for everyone to contribute to society by working so that society can grow and prosper. - lma-c Mar 9, 2008
What I noticed as similar were those strange instances of humor that Chekhov wrote in, like the chickens or the guitar. He also included different sounds like the string breaking. Even beyond that though, Chekhov builds on the same human emotions and connections, love, loss, etc. Of course, Uncle Vanya seems to involve more on the love theme than The Cherry Orchard, but the theme is still present in both. The characters of Uncle Vanya and Ephikhodof also were extremely similar in their disavowal of life, their impression that life is utterly worthless. These are common human experiences that make both plays relevant today and tie in with Faulkner's speech about good literature. I guess in this way, we will always find similarities amongst good works of literature, because they all include these basic human elements. - AHa-c Mar 9, 2008
dru, I have to disagree. I believe that the Cherry Orchard had a rising action, climax, falling action, etc. The rising action would be the family arriving and reminiscing. The climax would be when Lopakhin told the family that he bought the Orchard. The falling action was when the family was leaving, and then finally in the end Firs died. I definately saw each of those elements in the Cherry Orchard. I also so a few signs of those actions in Uncle Vanya. The rising action is Sonya loving the doctor, the professor not taking his medicine, Uncle Vanya continuously telling Yelena he loves her, etc. At the moment I think the climax is when the doctor makes a move on Yelena and Uncle Vanya sees them. We haven't finished watching the movie yet, so it is possilbe that something even more dramatic may happen. But both do contain the elements needed for a play. - szd-c Mar 9, 2008
Dsu mentioned the lack of action in both of these plays. I saw this too, and then I remembered Br Tom telling us about another film that took place only over a dinner conversation. I may be wrong, but I thought it was the person who saw Uncle Vanya performed in an apartment or something, who then took it to be filmed as a movie. For me, all three of these works seem like they would be slow to watch. I thought the play, Uncle Vanya, moved slow enough on film, I can't imagine the one over a dinner conversation. Granted, the simplicity probably helps audiences pick up on more subtle comments or conversations, but it isn't very captivating. - kec-c Mar 10, 2008
I somewhat agree that the movie and the play are similar because of the plotline of each story. I believe that the play does have a plotline, but the elements it is made of are much less dramatic than other plays we have read. I think that the movie also had the same format, being that the setting was within several days, and the most eventful moments were drawn by human emotion more than anything else (not limiting the qualities of a good climax.) I found similarities other than the ownership of an estate such as the release of feelings while drunk. Uncle Vanya has this problem in the movie, while I think it was Trophimof during the dancing scene in the play. Another resemblance between the two would be the viewpoint from someone who thinks he/she has completely wasted a major part of his/her life because it was robbed from them. This connection would be between Madam Ranevsky and Uncle Vanya. Any thoughts?- bzw-c Mar 10, 2008
I often had a hard time distinguishing the two plays at all. They are awfully similar. And AHa, I don't think that this is a similarity that comes from basic human elements, because this is definitely not Shakespeare. He rearranges the themes, but they come out all the same. You have already pointed out several similarities, I noticed a few more. The setting was essentially identical: an old mansion (ironically, both were even considered a good real estate investment). Vanya, as I read him, was often the anti-Lopakhin: both were hard workers (and both had some person who made them grow lazy), but while Lopakhin wins the auction and profits greatly by the end of the play, Vanya ends up stuck in the same exact spot as he was before, with only heaven to comfort him. Sonya was definitiely the Barbara of this film, right down to the frustration in love. Barbara could not get Lopakhin to notice her, nor could Sonya win the affections of the good doctor. We even see the slightly unhinged but comforting old woman (Nanny vs. Charlotte). At the time, these were good appropriate themes for Russia, so the similarities may have more to do with that. And there were differences. A temptress like Yelena was entirely absent from The Cherry Orchard, as far as I could tell? What else was unique to either? - TRu-c Mar 10, 2008
yes, there were some definite similarities between the two plays ~ why did Chevhov do this exactly? do we know -- or did Chekhov even do it intentionally??
what I noticed was the issue of selling the estate and purchasing a villa in Finland. now, in the movie play, Uncle Vanya was enraged, as Madame Ranevsky was in The Cherry Orchard. this was interesting . . . but I believe that Uncle Vanya was rightfully upset. he overreacted in my opinion because I did not see the Professor as having that evil of intentions as Vanya accused him. however, the Professor truly did not appreciate the work of his family. I see Chekhov making a point here; showing the gap wealth creates within a society -- even if it is between a single family.
one other note I want to point out is that a similarity between this play and As I Lay Dying struck me: Vanya is accused of being mad, but the Doctor tells Uncle Vanya that the people are mistaken. he says that everyone is mad, in a sense, and something along the lines of if everything could see things the way Vanya did, then they would not suppose him as mad at all. this was so similar to the insanity of Darl discussed in Faulkner's work.- sfa-c Mar 10, 2008
Another similarity that I noticed was the conversation that took place in both plays. There are conversations in both where both characters seem to be talking to themselves and ignoring what the other person says. Also, they insult each other or say something offensive, and it is taken very lightly. I'm not quite sure as to the significance of either though. My only thought is that it could indicate a certain disjointedness that Chekhov believes in, a fundamental seperation between people. This would explain the insults and lack of interaction in some conversations. Any other ideas?- mka-c Mar 12, 2008
I agree with MKa's post in that the conversations in both plays were very similar. Even the essence of the converstaions, in that they took up all of the action and attention of the play, was very similar in both plays. I do feel like there were moments in Uncle Vanya that could have been very funny if they were said a different way, just as in The Cherry Orchard many of the lines could have been said seriously and taken seriously. Did Chekhov know this when he was writing the play? And did he prefer comedy over seriousness? I'm not sure, but whether or not, we do know that he purposely added a massive amount of dialogue in both plays. - ptr-c Mar 12, 2008
I believe that Chekhov used humour because he realized its importance. The random comments and consistant ironic statements keptus on our toes and it kept us entertained. I believe that I pay attention more in classes in which humour is injected than class which are solely compiled of straight up facts. Thus, Chekhov did have a common comedic theme in both of these works. In addition, he had the common serf theme in both these works. We notice how Nanny and that other man never left the estate at all and begged to stay sort of like Firs. I believe that these two plays were quite similar and we notice in the end how people left and removed themselves from their intial situation. - kva-c Mar 13, 2008
ok, i wondered this too NVa, so thank you for posing the question. I know there has to be a connection between the two orchards, like Chekhov's usage of orchards in both plays. I did notice the whole portrayal of the lower class with the upper class. The lower class is always doing work; the upper class is always portrayed as being rather lazy. If i would have read The Cherry Orchard and seen the movie, without knowing the authors, I would have known that the author was Chekhov. There were similar types of characters. There was a Firs and people who were changing their situations in the world. - MFi-c Mar 13, 2008----
The doctor owning an orchard was one of the first things that connected this to the Cherry Orchard for me to. Another thing I noticed--less about the plot and more about style--was the lack of action in Uncle Vanya. All that happened in the movie was dialogue that refers to the action that previously happened--in the case of Uncle Vanya's and the Professor's pasts--or was happening simultaneously--the Doctor's arrival during the night, the Professor working. There was barely any action in the play, a characteristic that was also prominent in the Cherry Orchard, which again had all the dramatic moments of the story--namely, the auction--occur offstage and instead focused on the discussions and reactions to them. It is a different style of storytelling that Chekhov is trying, and although I'm not entirely sure whether I like it or not yet, I am interested to see how he continues to use it in Uncle Vanya.
-
I noticed some smaller similarities between Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard. In the movie, there was man wandering around playing his guitar in the background. This may seem insignificant, but it was exactly how I pictured Ephikhodof in the play. I immediately made that connection during the movie. Also, the older woman ("Nanny" I believe), rambling and calling her chickens reminded me of the strange and unintentionally humorous things that Firs would say. Sonya reminded me of Barbara. She was left to do much of the work around the house and didn't have a spouse. She was frustrated by this. Although Chekhov uses different characters, he used similar roles in Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard. DSu, I also found the styles of the two plays to be very similar. The humor in both were also similar. The random, strange occurences were what made me laugh in both.
-
I agree with KGa; a lot of the characters seemed to be portrayed in the same manner in Uncle Vanya and the Cherry Orchard. Also, neither of the plays seemed to have a plot in the usual sense, as we noticed in the Cherry Orchard. Usually a play will have a rising action, a climax, a conclusion--neither of the plays feature these actions. They both seem to be plays that just follow a group of upper-class people's lives (which are altogether uneventful). As Nick mentioned, the upper-class in both plays are portrayed as lazy, and this is explicitly pointed out in Uncle Vanya. Uncle Vanya is talking to Yelena and he starts talking about how there is something about her that brings out the laziness in everyone--everyone is under some spell of hers that makes them stop working and continually want to lounge and talk with her. They used to work, but they've completely stopped and it doesn't seem to change much of anything. In The Cherry Orchard, there was no mention of them ever working for their position, or working at all, but they have that same type of languid life that is seen in Uncle Vanya. -
To add to what dru said about laziness, I noticed that the lazy people are the ones who come from a wealthy background. In the cherry orchard, there were several mentions of how people in the the aristocratic class like Mme Ranevsky are so accustomed to getting pampered that they not only don't do any of their own work, but they also don't even know how to. This is just like Yelena. In one scene, she and Sonya are talking, and Sonya tells her that she should go out and work. Yelena says that she would like to, but she doesn't know how to do any of the jobs that Sonya mentions. I think that Chekhov wove this theme into several of his plays because he thinks it's important for everyone to contribute to society by working so that society can grow and prosper. -
What I noticed as similar were those strange instances of humor that Chekhov wrote in, like the chickens or the guitar. He also included different sounds like the string breaking. Even beyond that though, Chekhov builds on the same human emotions and connections, love, loss, etc. Of course, Uncle Vanya seems to involve more on the love theme than The Cherry Orchard, but the theme is still present in both. The characters of Uncle Vanya and Ephikhodof also were extremely similar in their disavowal of life, their impression that life is utterly worthless. These are common human experiences that make both plays relevant today and tie in with Faulkner's speech about good literature. I guess in this way, we will always find similarities amongst good works of literature, because they all include these basic human elements. -
dru, I have to disagree. I believe that the Cherry Orchard had a rising action, climax, falling action, etc. The rising action would be the family arriving and reminiscing. The climax would be when Lopakhin told the family that he bought the Orchard. The falling action was when the family was leaving, and then finally in the end Firs died. I definately saw each of those elements in the Cherry Orchard. I also so a few signs of those actions in Uncle Vanya. The rising action is Sonya loving the doctor, the professor not taking his medicine, Uncle Vanya continuously telling Yelena he loves her, etc. At the moment I think the climax is when the doctor makes a move on Yelena and Uncle Vanya sees them. We haven't finished watching the movie yet, so it is possilbe that something even more dramatic may happen. But both do contain the elements needed for a play.
-
Dsu mentioned the lack of action in both of these plays. I saw this too, and then I remembered Br Tom telling us about another film that took place only over a dinner conversation. I may be wrong, but I thought it was the person who saw Uncle Vanya performed in an apartment or something, who then took it to be filmed as a movie. For me, all three of these works seem like they would be slow to watch. I thought the play, Uncle Vanya, moved slow enough on film, I can't imagine the one over a dinner conversation. Granted, the simplicity probably helps audiences pick up on more subtle comments or conversations, but it isn't very captivating. -
I somewhat agree that the movie and the play are similar because of the plotline of each story. I believe that the play does have a plotline, but the elements it is made of are much less dramatic than other plays we have read. I think that the movie also had the same format, being that the setting was within several days, and the most eventful moments were drawn by human emotion more than anything else (not limiting the qualities of a good climax.) I found similarities other than the ownership of an estate such as the release of feelings while drunk. Uncle Vanya has this problem in the movie, while I think it was Trophimof during the dancing scene in the play. Another resemblance between the two would be the viewpoint from someone who thinks he/she has completely wasted a major part of his/her life because it was robbed from them. This connection would be between Madam Ranevsky and Uncle Vanya. Any thoughts?-
I often had a hard time distinguishing the two plays at all. They are awfully similar. And AHa, I don't think that this is a similarity that comes from basic human elements, because this is definitely not Shakespeare. He rearranges the themes, but they come out all the same. You have already pointed out several similarities, I noticed a few more. The setting was essentially identical: an old mansion (ironically, both were even considered a good real estate investment). Vanya, as I read him, was often the anti-Lopakhin: both were hard workers (and both had some person who made them grow lazy), but while Lopakhin wins the auction and profits greatly by the end of the play, Vanya ends up stuck in the same exact spot as he was before, with only heaven to comfort him. Sonya was definitiely the Barbara of this film, right down to the frustration in love. Barbara could not get Lopakhin to notice her, nor could Sonya win the affections of the good doctor. We even see the slightly unhinged but comforting old woman (Nanny vs. Charlotte). At the time, these were good appropriate themes for Russia, so the similarities may have more to do with that. And there were differences. A temptress like Yelena was entirely absent from The Cherry Orchard, as far as I could tell? What else was unique to either? -
yes, there were some definite similarities between the two plays ~ why did Chevhov do this exactly? do we know -- or did Chekhov even do it intentionally??
what I noticed was the issue of selling the estate and purchasing a villa in Finland. now, in the movie play, Uncle Vanya was enraged, as Madame Ranevsky was in The Cherry Orchard. this was interesting . . . but I believe that Uncle Vanya was rightfully upset. he overreacted in my opinion because I did not see the Professor as having that evil of intentions as Vanya accused him. however, the Professor truly did not appreciate the work of his family. I see Chekhov making a point here; showing the gap wealth creates within a society -- even if it is between a single family.
one other note I want to point out is that a similarity between this play and As I Lay Dying struck me: Vanya is accused of being mad, but the Doctor tells Uncle Vanya that the people are mistaken. he says that everyone is mad, in a sense, and something along the lines of if everything could see things the way Vanya did, then they would not suppose him as mad at all. this was so similar to the insanity of Darl discussed in Faulkner's work.-
Another similarity that I noticed was the conversation that took place in both plays. There are conversations in both where both characters seem to be talking to themselves and ignoring what the other person says. Also, they insult each other or say something offensive, and it is taken very lightly. I'm not quite sure as to the significance of either though. My only thought is that it could indicate a certain disjointedness that Chekhov believes in, a fundamental seperation between people. This would explain the insults and lack of interaction in some conversations. Any other ideas?-
I agree with MKa's post in that the conversations in both plays were very similar. Even the essence of the converstaions, in that they took up all of the action and attention of the play, was very similar in both plays. I do feel like there were moments in Uncle Vanya that could have been very funny if they were said a different way, just as in The Cherry Orchard many of the lines could have been said seriously and taken seriously. Did Chekhov know this when he was writing the play? And did he prefer comedy over seriousness? I'm not sure, but whether or not, we do know that he purposely added a massive amount of dialogue in both plays. -
I believe that Chekhov used humour because he realized its importance. The random comments and consistant ironic statements keptus on our toes and it kept us entertained. I believe that I pay attention more in classes in which humour is injected than class which are solely compiled of straight up facts. Thus, Chekhov did have a common comedic theme in both of these works. In addition, he had the common serf theme in both these works. We notice how Nanny and that other man never left the estate at all and begged to stay sort of like Firs. I believe that these two plays were quite similar and we notice in the end how people left and removed themselves from their intial situation.
-
ok, i wondered this too NVa, so thank you for posing the question. I know there has to be a connection between the two orchards, like Chekhov's usage of orchards in both plays. I did notice the whole portrayal of the lower class with the upper class. The lower class is always doing work; the upper class is always portrayed as being rather lazy. If i would have read The Cherry Orchard and seen the movie, without knowing the authors, I would have known that the author was Chekhov. There were similar types of characters. There was a Firs and people who were changing their situations in the world.
-